1. IrvingSnodgrass - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:41 AM PT
Read about Biotechnology in Slate. There are many benefits imaginable from this frield, but the potential abuses are very frightening.
Where should we draw the lines?
2. bubbaette - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:43 AM PT
Enodiputs. There's no excuse.
3. mariagleason - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:45 AM PT
No lines. Read your SF more carefully; it generally works out in the end. Besides, think of almost unlimited brain power potential.
4. CoralReef - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:03 AM PT
Cloning will be good. The rich will clone their children and themselves, becoming even more inbred thus leaving hardier regular people more able to succeed while the drooling elite flail about.
5. cllrdr - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:21 AM PT
Love dead. Hate living.
6. elliot803 - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:36 PM PT
I think this is a fascinating issue. Within a relatively short time, we may have the power to alter our physical and mental natures in funadamental ways, and very few people seem to be seriously thinking about the questions this power will pose.
By the way, today I read that scientists have just announced that they have sequenced the entire genome of the worm c. elegans. This is by far the most advanced organism yet sequenced. Human beings only have about 4 times as many genes as this creature. According to the article, scientists believe this achievment will yield immediate benefits in terms of new drugs and therapies for human diseases.
The sequencing of the human genome is expected to be completed by 2003, and possibly as early as 2001.
7. chloel - Dec. 11, 1998 - 2:31 PM PT
... who gets the patents?
8. atrocity - Dec. 11, 1998 - 3:24 PM PT
Another cheap controversy stirred up by someone who's job is stirring up controversies. Towards the end, he spills it -- "these are the questions philosophers ought to ponder". These "ethicists" are upset that the subject of their abstract ponderings will become an event of everyday life. As Douglas Adams has it, what mistery is left in worshipping the God if you can have his bloody phone number? Why growing organs seems to be so upsetting to them? Why the idea of artificial heart of plastic and metal is more acceptable than idea of "100% natural" one?
9. resonance - Dec. 11, 1998 - 3:52 PM PT
The patent question is the pressing one in biotechnology. The last ruling I've heard about held that humans didn't have patent, profit, or even consent rights as far as what is done with their DNA once it's been sampled.
In addition to this, a lot of the DNA samples out there were collected without consent -- before this was an issue, or collected in a manner that no one thought of as being a DNA sample -- and much of the samples that were gained with consent aren't linkable to their donor. Originally, this practice was done so that issues of confidentiality and privacy weren't infringed upon, but now it means if someone's DNA turns out to be extremely valuable they might never even learn of it, much less collect a profit from it.
10. resonance - Dec. 11, 1998 - 3:59 PM PT
There's a lot of questions. Think about them. Who controls the technology? Who gets access to it? Are people recompensed for their DNA if it is necessary to some discovery? Do people own their genetic sequences? Is the development of the technology worth the possible costs in terms of violated privacy to private citizens?
Moreover, there's the more distant and rarefied questions. Does society benefit in the long run? How should the profits and licensing of breakthroughs made with DNA or tissue taken from the massive government and armed forces DNA banks be carried out? And, finally, how will we handle cloning? It won't happen on any real scale for a long time, I think, but it will happen.
11. beyond - Dec. 11, 1998 - 5:35 PM PT
It seems like we are standing around wondering what on earth it means to "own" genes just as Native Americans couldn't understand "owning" the earth. It's God's earth afterall shared by one and all. Stunned we watch while the gold rush is on and power concentrates. Rappacini rules.
12. VicKuligin - Dec. 11, 1998 - 6:03 PM PT
Concerning Message #6 what exactly is the benefit to sequencing a worm's genome?? Does this mean that they know what each and every part does, once it is "sequenced?"
And if this is done for a human by the year 2001, what does that mean exactly??
13. KurtMondaugen - Dec. 11, 1998 - 6:28 PM PT
Res:
"And, finally, how will we handle cloning?"
As I understand it, nobody except those on the lunatic fringe (Michael Jackson, etc.) is suggesting cloning humans in any real sense. Rather, the cloning of fetuses in order to garner cells for disease research is the projected application.
14. resonance - Dec. 11, 1998 - 7:49 PM PT
Yes, but if we can render a cell pluripotent we can eventually render it totipotent, Kurt. I know what the article says but the main technology is the same.
There's something here which people aren't really discussing, either. We're talking about just growing an organ and popping it in when we need it. And organs do not grow in a vacuum -- they shape and differentiate partially according to the cells around them. I'm not sure how well we can grow an organ outside of a body, for that reason. Perhaps we should be talking about grafting in cultured organ tissues and not replacing the organ itself.
15. thomasd - Dec. 11, 1998 - 7:58 PM PT
A problem with genetic engineering (beyond repair of genetic damage or correcting the effects of genes which cause illness or death) is that it will affect individuals who are, by definition, not present to submit their opinions of the genetic manipulation.
16. Blaise - Dec. 12, 1998 - 2:10 PM PT
I find this form of manipulation alarming to say the least, for all the reasons we've discussed in my ethics class. We were reading Huxley's Brave New World Revisited when Saletan's "timely" piece appeared in Slate: "In my fable of Brave New World, the dictators had added science to the list and thus were able to enforce their authority by manipulating the bodies of embryos, the reflexes of infants and the minds of children and adults."
At the same time, driving to school, I was listening to John Hockingberry's program, The DNA Federal Bank, on NPR. Who would be stupid enough to hand over his/her DNA genetic information (a person's last liberty to privacy and autonomy) to the government, to the scientific community in the name of "The Collective Good"? Probably the masses of morons. You would think, given the Holocaust, that people would be terribly alarmed about such biotech experimentation. Imagine if Bob Barr were in charge of such a program!
It's easy to mock people's concerns over bio-manipulation, but recall that in the years before the Holocaust, people thought ethnic cleansing was also hyperbole and overblown.
In any event, I appreciated William Saletan's article.
17. resonance - Dec. 12, 1998 - 2:33 PM PT
Well, there are very good reasons for us to maintain a gene and tissue catalog. The Army and the NIH maintain theirs for pathology studies (and, yes, I am a little nervous that the Army has one, but once you think about it they're always going to have one anyway because they have to keep DNA records to identify their missing soldiers with). If we maintain a comprehensive gene bank we can sequence the human genome, which means that we are about a million times closer to developing treatments for diseases ranging from cancer to Alzheimer's to Tay-Sachs.<pAs far as being stupid enough to surrender your DNA to someone... well, ever given blood?<p>Once you think about it, almost every breakthrough we've made has brought with it the chance for misuse. Understanding what makes bodies run is also understanding efficient or painful ways to kill people. Understanding chemical explosion doesn't just give us the internal combustion engine, seismic probing, and the ability to loft a satellite into orbit, it also gives us the fuel air explosive, the ability to build a bomb the size of an alarm clock which can kill hundreds of people, and the ICBM. Understanding the way we think and perceive makes it possible not just to heal mental trauma but also to cause it, and to unconsciously manipulate people in the process. <p>We ought to be wary of new technology, but that doesn't mean we should be afraid of discovery and breakthroughs. It doesn't mean that we should stop learning and creating new inventions. What it means is that we have to be afraid of our own capacity to use such things for harm.
18. Blaise - Dec. 12, 1998 - 3:40 PM PT
Res: Giving blood is one thing, storing a "DNA File" on everyone is quite a different matter. In a world where Greed and Selfishness reign supreme, I'm afraid that these so-called wonderful medical advancements will lead to GATTACA, if you've seen the film. As one native American put it, "The white man is very clever, but he is not wise."
19. resonance - Dec. 12, 1998 - 3:48 PM PT
But no one is storing a DNA file on everyone, and indeed most of those files are anonymous -- anyone who would try to determine the identity of the person who gave the sample would usually have absolutely nothing to work with. And no, I've never seen GATTACA, though I just now understood the significance of the title.
20. AdamSelene - Dec. 12, 1998 - 7:06 PM PT
So. Is genoronics (or whatever) immoral in and of itself? Or does it depend on how it's used? In simpler terms, is knowledge itself amoral or must it choose sides? I vote for amoral. Besides, I - for one - would *like* to live forever. Anyone else?
21. resonance - Dec. 12, 1998 - 7:21 PM PT
Let's take a for-instance (not that this example will get things rolling, here, but I think it's worth considering). Let's examine a few scenarios.
As it stands, now, someone doing research on an NIH grant who has access to NIH gene samples is researching a cure for cancer. Say, their focus is a cure for breast cancer. The samples in question are unlinked -- that means, they come with biological information about the donor, but there is no way to link that information to any real person.
And one of the samples has a peculiar DNA pattern -- a mutant gene, to be exact. The gene is normally one of the ones that is activated when its cell becomes malignant. Yet this gene doesn't activate in that way -- it does everything else it's supposed to, but a culture grown from the sample will not turn malignant as other cell cultures do.
Say the researcher notices this, and starts examining the gene -- exposing it to other carcinogens, etc. No cancer. Say this gene is plugged into a retrovirus and other kinds of human tissue cultures are inoculated with this retrovirus -- and those cultures which successfully take up the gene show resistance to many common forms of cancer. And we run from there. We're talking about a discovery that isn't only worth millions of lives, but billions upon billions of dollars. Since the sample, according to protocol, was unlinked -- there isn't any name attached to it -- there's no way for that original person to lay any claim to the discovery and his or her share of the profits. He or she, it is quite likely, never even gave their consent to have their DNA experimented with.
The researcher may end up dying richer than the Sultan of Brunei and the donor will not only never receive a dime, but will indeed almost certainly never know that he or she played a role in the matter.
22. resonance - Dec. 12, 1998 - 7:22 PM PT
He or she certainly won't have the right to stop any of the research, even if the company with the cure charges such a high amount of money for it that only the rich can afford this cancer cure, or commits any other possibly unethical acts.
But it's one person's DNA that made it all possible. If it were their invention that made it all possible, or indeed any other inheritable feature -- such as their likeness or their singing voice or their athletic ability or their property or whatever -- they would have an unquestionable right to some of the proceeds. But since it is their DNA -- a part of their body that was removed from them and has been experimented upon quite possibly without either their knowledge or their consent -- they will get nothing.
Of course, we're talking about something like a cure for cancer, which will change the way everyone looks at the issue. Curing cancer is something that most people had, have, or will have at some point, a vested interest in doing. The public benefit is high and therefore someone might decide that the DNA donor has no right to put a stop to the research or start litigation for part of the profits -- an act which might delay the introduction of the cure into the marketplace.
But let's examine this possibility in another vein. Let's say that the potential benefit is not as wide and doesn't pertain to health or saving lives -- for example, the DNA sample leads to a breakthrough in genetic therapy which increases virility or allows post-menopausal women to get pregnant again, or allows late-menopausal women to get pregnant without the higher risks of birth defects. Or, say, genetic therapy which remarkably boosts memory retention or intellectual capability. These would be extremely profitable breakthroughs that would not have been capable without the DNA sample. Wouldn't the donor deserve something of the profits?
23. resonance - Dec. 12, 1998 - 7:23 PM PT
The problem, however, isn't so much that there are so many samples which have no information about their donor on them. There's no way of linking those samples to their donors, and therfore it's pointless to talk about whether or not the donor would get their fair share of the profits. Somewhat more grey is the question of whether companies should be allowed to do research involving these samples -- there's clear potential benefits to society, but there's also ethical considerations on the part of doing research without consent.
But to me what seems quite wrong is that even if these samples weren't unlinked or unidentified -- if they were coded or identified samples and their donors culd be identified -- the donors would still, according to the law, have no claim upon any profit resulting from her or his DNA, or any right to say whether or not they approved of their DNA being used for the specific purpose. They just have to be told that their DNA is being used, and while there are some guidelines which must be followed if someone is to get to use NIH gene samples, these guidelines aren't set in stone.
And there's the military gene samples, as well, which are available to the nice folks in our military's CBW divisions.
And the largest amount of genetic samples aren't through the NIH or the military -- they're available through private institutions such as medical schools and commercial gene banks. So we're not necessarily looking at someone not being able to reap a profit on their DNA, but also someone not being able to stop research which uses their DNA to develop a weapon.
24. resonance - Dec. 12, 1998 - 7:24 PM PT
Knowledge of itself can't have a moral standing. Only acts can.
25. LadyChaos - Dec. 12, 1998 - 7:37 PM PT
My biggest concern is that decoding human genetic structures will lead to a complete therapy against aging. Much as I enjoy being alive, I don't think that evolution can run its course if we lock in a permanent status quo generation. Or who knows? Maybe immortality will become a class divider - sort of like whether or not you live west of La Cienega?
26. AdamSelene - Dec. 12, 1998 - 7:55 PM PT
Lady,
A little envious, perhaps? Why should you care if someone else becomes immortal?
resonance,
What, exactly, is your point? That one should profit from the dna left by their parents? Even if they give it away knowing there's a very slight chance that it might prove valuable?
27. LadyChaos - Dec. 12, 1998 - 7:59 PM PT
Adam,
I think it's important. I wouldn't accept immortality even if it was offered to me (unless I could be an immortal fiend a la the Vampire Lestat), because from a completely rational, non-religious point of view, I believe that the lesson of history is that man-made status quos are bad things, whether in politics, economics, or in nature. Immortality may prove as disastrous to evolution as "taming" the Everglades was an ecological debacle.
28. LadyChaos - Dec. 12, 1998 - 8:03 PM PT
On a more emotional level, I think that immortality would be selfish. Anyone who has children or grandchildren can tell you that the most fundamental joy of being human is watching your progeny grow and learn about the world, knowing that they will eventually understand the world in a way different from how you understood it.
What if everyone alive today could suddenly be immortal? Would we ever evolve past our current thinking? Would we ever be able to think in new ways about energy use, for example? The thought of it gives me great pause. It has nothing to do with envy.
29. resonance - Dec. 12, 1998 - 8:05 PM PT
"What, exactly, is your point? That one should
profit from the dna left by their parents? Even if
they give it away knowing there's a very slight
chance that it might prove valuable?"
They don't give it away, they allow it to be used. It's their property, Selene. You know, that thing they have to have a right to? (smile)
LC:
While I share some concerns about the potential effects of genetically engineering long life -- there's no real way I can imagine us ever engineering immortality -- I think it's wrong to refer to evolution as 'having to run its course'. Evolution doesn't have a course of the sort.
30. LadyChaos - Dec. 12, 1998 - 8:14 PM PT
res,
I'm not referring to any fatalistic or superstitious notion of evolution "running its course," so much as I am very concerned that man-made status quos have historically proven to be bad for everything. My "religion" is chaos, if you will, and whenever we have tried to tame chaos, things have turned out for the worse, much worse.
31. resonance - Dec. 12, 1998 - 8:18 PM PT
Into Arioch, are you? Or is it our Lady Eris? (smile)
If you haven't, you might want to read 'The Eyes of Heisenberg' by Frank Herbert -- it's germane to what you're talking about and a good read anyway.
I don't know that we can honestly say that wherever we try to tame chaos we inevitably fuck things up worse than they were, but I suppose it's a matter of perspective and I expect that's a matter for another thread anyway.
32. mariagleason - Dec. 12, 1998 - 8:41 PM PT
Milady,
I recently read a book by James Halperin called _The First Immortal_. I hope you have time to read it during your Winter break as it deals with many of the issues that concern you. I plowed through it in about three hours.
33. LadyChaos - Dec. 12, 1998 - 8:46 PM PT
Thanks, Maria. I'll put it on my list. (Cllrdr's book has been sitting on my reading table for about three months, now, and I'm looking forward to finally reading it next week.)
34. AuNaturel - Dec. 12, 1998 - 9:08 PM PT
LC:
Don't let PseudoErasmus hear you use the word chaos. He'll sneer at you so loud your hard drive will warp. You wouldn't happen to be libertarian in your political leanings, would you? Or Wiccan in your religious leanings?
Res:
Knowledge doesn't have moral standing, but it certainly has practical standing. The history of mankind indicates that on average knowledge benefits us more than it hurts us. (That is unless you're into some kind of "noble savage" bag.) It also indicates that societies that attempt to limit the development of knowledge either A) Fail in the end. or B)End up getting surpassed by those that don't.
35. Kurohune - Dec. 12, 1998 - 9:42 PM PT
While Saletan accurately points out the questions that the biotech folks are not asking, allow us to examine his logic and we will inevitably find assumptions as well.
First, are organ transplants currently morally acceptable? If so, then let us look at the ethical issues of Mexican poor people donating their kidneys and livers and bone marrow for transplants for wealthy Americans; or the same which takes place in Algeria and Egypt for the European organ market. Let us not forget that the Nicaraguan revolution had its opening demonstrations in front of the American-run blood-plasma donation bank in Managua. America literally bleeding a country white. If organ transplants are not acceptable, why not? Is it because of expense? Effectiveness? Certainly, growing organs with the right immune-response would be less costly and more effective. Is it an issue of relative expenditure on the old versus the young? Would reducing healthcare expenses for the elderly lead to increased expenditures for pre-natal care, child-care, education, basic nutrition, housing, etc? Does Saletan actually believe in some abstract notion of dying of 'natural causes' without utilizing 'technology' to forestall death? If transplantation is unnatural technology, then what about oxygen masks, immunization, sterile techniques, antibiotics?
Saletan is bothered by reprogramming. I think this boils down to a fear of humans gaining control over their own biology. Are only hit and miss technologies acceptable, but those that give pin-point control frightening.
Certainly, powerful technology will be used by forces solely interested in profit or power. The real question is do we stop the advancement of our collective knowledge and capability because of the nature of the power structure of the world? Or do we force changes or the overthrow of that structure so that the fullest flowering and democratic benefit of our power can be realized?
No other question is relevant
36. AdamSelene - Dec. 12, 1998 - 10:04 PM PT
mariagleason,
small world. I just finished "the First Immortal" and I found it very plausable.
It reminded me of a short story I read many years ago (perhaps someone remebers the title/author?) In that story, several galactic citizens are at a reunion and discussing events they participated in several centuries ago. Then one says, "whatever happened to so and so?" To which another replies, "don't you remember? She died just before immortality was discovered."
It should have been titled, "The Last Mortal."
37. AdamSelene - Dec. 12, 1998 - 10:11 PM PT
LadyNonlinearDynamics,
What makes you think people would be stagnent if they became immortal? I personally would love to change careers every century or so. Neurosurgeon for awhile, then economist, then pilot, etc. Maybe even a politician for a couple of centuries.
Let the kiddies make their mark on alpha centuri. Since it would take a few hundred years to get to the nearest few star systems, immortality could be quite useful.
38. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 12, 1998 - 10:16 PM PT
Agreed. Immorality would be great -- especially if you could also die by your own hand just in case you got bored after 15,000 years or a global catastrophe left you alone with the cockroaches.
39. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 12, 1998 - 10:17 PM PT
Oops. IMMORTALITY would be great, though immorality is equally wonderful.
40. AdamSelene - Dec. 12, 1998 - 10:20 PM PT
resonance,
"They don't give it away, they allow it to be used. It's their property, Selene. You know, that thing they have to have a right to? (smile)"
Then, perhaps they should explicitely retain "mineral rights" when they grant easements on their property. (*g*)
Point being, of course, that it's your responsibility to watch what you allow others to do with your property. It's pretty hard to put that genii back in the bottle after you throw away the corkscrew.
41. AdamSelene - Dec. 12, 1998 - 10:21 PM PT
PE,
LOL --- I wonder if those two would naturally go together after several centuries?
42. Ptoben - Dec. 12, 1998 - 10:27 PM PT
What a great day for believers of reincarnation when they can witness Judge Hoffman of the Chicago 7 trial, come back as Henry Hyde in the christian right wing get Sox the cat & Bill & Hillary trial.
43. resonance - Dec. 12, 1998 - 10:28 PM PT
I don't think we ought to use the word 'immortal' in this context. After all, what we're talking about is buffering the effect that aging has upon us. Perhaps we're even talking about eliminating the effect that aging has upon us -- but that doesn't mean 'immortal'.
I think being immortal per se would suck after a while, but I wouldn't mind not getting older.
44. LadyChaos - Dec. 12, 1998 - 10:42 PM PT
AuNatural,
Thanks for the warning, but it's way too late. PE has sneered at me often enough for me to call myself a veteran fraygrant (but he mostly just ignores me, which is sometimes good, sometimes bad). He's never much liked my stagnant false status quo theory of history, and I don't expect that he ever will. I can only hope that, for the sake of justice in the universe, PE will return in the next life as an empty-headed bimbo (male or female) whose biggest move in life will be from Omaha to Los Angeles to pursue a modeling career.
As to my political leanings, the test I took that someone linked here several months ago informed me that I am a "left-libertarian," whatever that means.
45. resonance - Dec. 12, 1998 - 10:48 PM PT
Oh, god. The test.I have that linked and the other day I tested on it again. And I still came out Centrist, though I think I might have been closer to left than I was last time. I suppose that's what the Fray and openmindedness will do to you.
46. LadyChaos - Dec. 12, 1998 - 11:00 PM PT
Face it, res. Underneath that cantankerous exterior, you just ooze middle class common sense ;-)
47. resonance - Dec. 12, 1998 - 11:01 PM PT
A question, to the group at large: Would people who had taken longevity treatments be likely to work until the point which they had amassed enough money that they could live indefinitely off their investment? Or would they be more likely to remain in work, as part-timers at the least?
48. LadyChaos - Dec. 12, 1998 - 11:04 PM PT
Btw, is anyone else having the problem that I'm having? - Instead of uploading just the last twenty posts, my browser is uploading the entire thread. This is annoying, not to mention time-consuming.
49. resonance - Dec. 12, 1998 - 11:04 PM PT
actually, though I suppose I hate to admit it, I'm more of a PseudoErasmian radical centrist. I didn't have too many centrist answers, it was just that they balanced out.
50. resonance - Dec. 12, 1998 - 11:13 PM PT
The quiz, by the way, is full of loaded questions and slanted toward getting libertarian-oriented answers. So if you take it and it tells you you're a libber, you probably didn't think about the questions hard enough (smile).
51. resonance - Dec. 12, 1998 - 11:17 PM PT
My scores.
52. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 12, 1998 - 11:21 PM PT
"He's never much liked my stagnant false status quo theory of history..."
Huh? What on earth is that?
53. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 12, 1998 - 11:23 PM PT
Well, this is my third time taking the test, and I still come out the same:
"Your Personal Self-Government Score is 60%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 50%."
54. mariagleason - Dec. 12, 1998 - 11:37 PM PT
No surprises; I'm a left-leaning centrist according to the quiz just like the other two times I took the quiz with scores of 60 personal / 40 economic.
55. mariagleason - Dec. 13, 1998 - 1:25 AM PT
AdamSelene,
There is a book out by C S Friedman called _This Alien Shore_ which you might like. The protagonist is a girl who's brain capacity has been expanded to the max by a Terran corporation which plans to use her to end the monopoly on space travel of a former space colony - but she goes on the lam.
It's a combination of cyber-punk adventures and good old-fashioned space exploration and the problems of colonization.
56. AdamSelene - Dec. 13, 1998 - 7:38 AM PT
mariagleason,
Thanks - I'll check it out. I've don't usually enjoy cyberpunk (e.g., William Gibson) because it's way too dark of a vision for me. But I do like some of the slightly more humanistic stuff (like "Trouble and Her Friends," or almost anything else by Milissa Scott.)
57. LadyChaos - Dec. 13, 1998 - 8:29 AM PT
res,
I went back to the quiz and changed one or two answers to "Maybe," which moved me to the left-libertarian corner of centrist.
58. Blaise - Dec. 13, 1998 - 10:21 AM PT
For the sake of argument, let's hypothesize that these manipulated embryos will serve to provide all the necessary “replacement organs” when one's bodily organs fail via the aging process. In fact, let's hypothesize that these specially designed genetic hearts can cure cancer if eaten fresh from the baby's body. If you eat the heart of these babies, it will immediately cure all ailments, and you'll live 50 years longer, it will rejuvenate all your life-cells.
Why not? Why not go for it? After all, producing these genetic embryos can be easily accomplished; certainly one sees the grand potential of establishing an Embryo Farmworks Corporation. There'll be different varieties of these embryos, the babies with the little cow hooves, they're worth $40,000 a head because they have a very unique genetic ability to cure all forms of cancer.
What are we waiting for! Why not act on our knowledge! The End justifies the Means!
***
What does it mean to be human? ha. That's the Eternal Question, isn't it, Irving?
59. mariagleason - Dec. 13, 1998 - 10:47 AM PT
AdamSelene,
I very much enjoyed _Trouble and Her Friends_, too, and I read anything by Melissa Scott.
Although there's a part of me that really goes for the darkness of the Gibsons and Stirlings, I'm also a huge fan of the Asimov style of SF. _This Alien Shore_ is a sort of marriage of the best of both styles, and the darkness (involving motives) is in the background. It was a great read.
60. CalGal - Dec. 13, 1998 - 11:26 AM PT
Same as last time--left liberal, 100% personal, 40% economic.
I'm only one question away from being a libertarian *or* a centrist, apparently. If I change my answer on foreign aid, I become a libertarian. Change my answer on people moving across borders, a centrist.
61. CalGal - Dec. 13, 1998 - 11:27 AM PT
Of course, I'm binary--M answers are for wusses.
62. AdamSelene - Dec. 13, 1998 - 12:18 PM PT
Blaise,
That, my dear, is the $64,000 question. Virtually no one would sacrifice one human for another, even if they were a clone. And we (should) all agree at least that once born (or decanted?) a baby is a human. This is really just the abortion question in another setting. No one argues about the rights of the baby - just the question of when it begins. I, for one, would have no qualms about cloning or breeding humans without brains and raising them for spare parts. But I wouldn't abort a 9-month fetus.
63. AuNaturel - Dec. 13, 1998 - 12:28 PM PT
Message #50
Yes, I'm definitely a left libertarian on the quiz. Couldn't answer a single question honestly with "no", but a lot of solid "yes". Of course the questions are written such that anyone with even a smidge of rationality to them has to come out somewhere in the lib. corner. It is, after all, a recruitment piece used by various libertarian orgaizations.
64. AdamSelene - Dec. 13, 1998 - 12:35 PM PT
As expected, my little red dot was maxed out libertarian. While the questions are obviously biased (imagine how most people would score on something like: "Should government let homeless people starve?") the descriptions of alternative political ideologies at the end were very balanced.
65. AuNaturel - Dec. 13, 1998 - 12:42 PM PT
The problem with the hoary old "what is a person" question is that we always seem to try to answer it biologically. That may be fine for determining species membership but not so hot for almost any other purpose. If a little green creature from Mars landed in your back yard and asked you to "Take me to your leader", you could lock it up in a cage and sell it to the zoo or cook it for dinner without legal hazard.
A useful defintion of "person" needs to focus on intellectual capacity and apparent self awareness. Any defonition of "person" broad enough to include babies and Martians might end up including apes and dolphins or even other animals
66. LadyChaos - Dec. 13, 1998 - 1:15 PM PT
Message #62,
So, perhaps everyone at birth is given a brainless, spare-part clone of themselves?
67. AdamSelene - Dec. 13, 1998 - 3:01 PM PT
LadyChaos,
Sure. Why not? (Just so long as you don't use my tax dollars to do it, of course. *g*)
68. AdamSelene - Dec. 13, 1998 - 3:03 PM PT
AuNatural,
I agree. But be careful that you don't define away infants --- my dog is more concsious and more in control of their responsibilities than any 3-month old infant.
69. resonance - Dec. 18, 1998 - 12:07 AM PT
Well, this thread might be warming up in a day or so. There is an unconfirmed report that a South Korean biologist has gotten a successful mammalian embryo clone from hybridizing a non-gamete denucleated ovary cell with a functional, nucleated cell. Apparently, the rules of the State and the conditions of his research contract prohibited him from implanting the embryo but he just wanted to see if it could be done up until that stage.
He apparently got one 'successful' cloned embryo out of several attempts -- I use quotes because the embryo was deemed a type three embryo, which means it's not healthy. And it was very small, in the four to eight cell-stage. When the embryo is at that stage you can't really tell if it's viable or not, or indeed if it's even an embryo or if the cells just started dividing randomly. My best guess would be that this is not a technique that is going to yield immediate rewards.
So what makes this so important, given what we already know about the viability of cloning?
It's a human embryo.
70. resonance - Dec. 18, 1998 - 12:31 AM PT
It was apparently at the four cell stage, and was cloned from the cumulus cells of an infertile woman's ovaries. It was done by fusing this cell to denucleated fertilized eggs. And it *was* grade Three.
It's important to keep in mind that this procedure is almost exactly the same as that which produced cloned mice and cloned sheep.
I wonder if this means that there will be a growing market for fertilized eggs to denucleate.
71. resonance - Dec. 18, 1998 - 9:53 AM PT
What's the matter, don't you frickin' people read the news?